Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA05903 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:12:46 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: What is "useful"; what is "survival" Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:10:42 -0700 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJCENDEOAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3939391D.6832054B@mediaone.net> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
More with Chuck:
[CP]
> <<Do weathermen predict the future? How well do they understand the
> weather?>>
>
[RB]
> Yes of course they predict the future and understand the weather... that's
> their job. What's your point?
<<My point is that they often don't predict very well - depending on the
area of
the country. Nevertheless, they understand a lot about how the weather
works.
viz. the butterfly effect.>>
And so your conclusion is that the science in their profession is the
understanding, not the prediction? Nonsense. If they developed a better
model that predicted better they would use it. Interestingly the "butterfly
effect" you refer to is exactly an example of NOT understanding.
[RB]
> So you see no distinction between coming up with a novel innovation on
one's
> own and learning about it from someone who already has the knowledge?
Isn't
> one a lot more difficult and rare?
<<That distinction may or may not be relevant. It depends on the context.
I'm not
trying to evade the issue; that's basic scientific method.>>
Nevertheless it's pulling teeth getting you to admit that ideas are
transmitted from one person to another. Can you deny it?
[RB]
> But the question was whether you acknowledge that information spread
> memetically throughout a culture.
<<I wouldn't use the word memetically -- that's your word with all your
connotations. In my line of work, we simply say that people spread knowledge
for
a number of different motivations.>>
I agree completely... and they also spread knowledge unintentionally with no
motivation at all... and they spread ignorance, with or without motivation.
NOW... what are the factors that influence the differential spread of
information? That's memetics.
[RB]
> Could you please repeat the essence of your theory
> that conflicts with memetics?
<<The thread has been lost here, so I don't know what you are referring to
exactly.>>
Must be the amnesia kicking in. Do you still claim that you have a theory of
cultural change that conflicts with memetics? If not, the only thing that
remains is for you to see the value of memetics for prediction and
engineering.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
http://www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 06 2000 - 23:13:24 BST